Minty v Queensland Community Corrections Board

[2006] QSC 23

ware Keponlng Bureau Date: 13 February, 2006

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2006] QSC 023

CIVIL JURISDICTION

DOUGLAS J

No 1176 of 2005

DAVID CYRIL MINTY	Applicant
and
THE QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS	First Respondent
BOARD and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES OF QUEENSLAND	Second Respondent
BRISBANE
JUDGMENT

categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those

08022006 D.l SC (Douglas J)

The issue essentially addressed by the board's letter of 21 April 2005, which later became incorporated in the reasons the board gave for its decision, is set out in two paragraphs on the third page of the letter. They read as follows:

"While the Board accepts the advice from the various

reports which recommend your gradual return to the

community and that your condition has improved over the

years, it maintains that, without a release plan which

incorporates in a realistic manner how you would handle

the stresses of living with your personality disorder in

the community, there remains an area of unacceptable

risk to the community. Throughout various reports the Board noted such statements as Dr Kar's statement when discussing the personality disorder of how 'the	20
personality disorder can fluctuate, and brief psychotic episodes are noted in some individuals, particularly those suffering unusual stress'. The Board considered the stresses of your returning to the community, to be particularly problematic within the context of your offending.
Dr Kar mentioned that your 'oddness and eccentricity and, in fact, frank bizarreness at times was evident in the
nature of (your) of fence.	. . . The motive for (your)

offence had never become clear and (your) efforts to explain (yourself) have been hard to understand. Dr deLeacy also noted that you said that the murder was 'surreal' and that you had been catatonic. It was within

this context of a murder that is linked with your
'oddness and eccentricity' that the Board concluded that
you pose an unacceptable risk if returned to the
community, even under supervision, at this time. It
recommends that you continue to use your noted
intelligence to address your personality disorder and

develop strategies that will assist you to handle the

inevitable misunderstandings and stresses of a return to

the community. In this way the concern of the board may

be addressed."

For those reasons the board said that in that letter it

presently seemed to it that Mr Minty may not be an acceptable	50
risk to the community on any form of post prison community based release order and that it should refuse the application, but it gave him the opportunity to forward information to it that might cause it to reach a different final decision.

3 JUDGMENT 60

08022006 D.1 SC	(Douglas J)
by Mr Minty, particularly focusing on perceptions by him that	"I
irrelevant facts such as an earlier alleged assault by him of
a prisoner had been taken into account. There was also criticism by him of the failure of a psychiatrist, Dr Kar, to take into account material that he wished Dr Kar to read when

10

Dr Kar was psychiatrically assessing him. He also wished to attack the decision on the basis that it was affected by bad faith and in spite of being invited by me to take me to

evidence supporting the allegation of bad faith, he was unable
to take me to evidence that amounted, in my view, to facts
that could lead to such a conclusion. He did point to
disagreements between him and a psychologist, MS McEvoy, and
another psychologist, MS Maher, and also pointed to what he
asserted were inconsistencies between assessments of his risk
classification in a number of documents. It also appeared
that he disagreed with some of the conclusions reached by some
of the psychiatrists who examined him, but none of that
evidence either individually or as part of any larger picture
provided support for a conclusion that the board's decision

was affected by bad faith.

Mr Logan SC for the board out of fairness to Mr Minty also	addressed what he perceived might have been arguments of a
legal nature behind some of the factual submissions made by Mr Minty, namely, for example, whether there was evidence on

50

which the conclusions of the board or the reasons of the board
could have been based or whether the decision was one which a

board properly considering the matter could have reached.

JUDGMENT 60

08022006 D.l SC (Douglas J)

episode from stress may result. He went on to say:

"Despite this, I still believe he would be a fairly

acceptable risk, and the likelihood of serious

dangerousness is, in my opinion, extremely low. There is

merit in him having ongoing follow-up with a community

correctional officer and perhaps seeing a psychiatrist on
a regular basis for counselling and support as well as

monitoring of his mental state to pick up any

deterioration early so that it can be managed more	10
effectively without any unusual or serious consequences."

Similarly, Dr Varghese in his report of 25 October 2000, some years before, when addressing whether there was a psychiatric reason why Mr Minty ought not to be granted parole for work

release said that he did not believe that there was any
inherent danger then, but that it would be wise to be

cautious, given the past history of apparently "psychotic- like" episodes under certain circumstances. He went on to say:

"Mr Minty has now been free of any psychotic-like
symptoms for many years and the reason for this maybe
that he is in a relatively contained and moreover very
predictable environment. In a more complex environment
involving multipleand unpredictable social interaction,
the possibility of a paranoid state or psychosis emerging

could not be excluded."

Dr Fama was more positive than that in his expectations of

Mr Minty's likely behaviour on release, but a psychologist,	Esme Robson, while agreeing that Mr Minty was a low risk of
reoffending, went on to say that the level of risk would be dependent upon Mr Minty's ongoing motivation to actualise his

50

skills in a positive manner in the community and that he
should do this in a manner consistent with his stated

pre-release plans and relapse prevention program. He said:

JUDGMENT 60

08022006 D.l SC (Douglas J)

2004 and on 12 May 2005, he was returned to Numinbah
Correctional Centre with an open security classification.

The evidence relied upon by the second respondent in reaching the decision it made appears, in any event, to have supported

10

the decision because of observations of bizarre behaviour by Numinbah. The submission made by Mr Plunkett is that the facts gave rise, in effect, to a need for swift action and that in those circumstances, if judicial review were

20

available, which he did not concede, the right of review, for
example, for failure to accord procedural fairness, would be
circumscribed by the circumstances of urgency in which the
decision was made.

That is an issue which I do not need to consider. The main issue seems to me to be that, if the decision were reviewable, the evidence suggests that there was a proper reason for making it. It has since been reviewed and, as a result of Mr Minty's own submissions, his classification has reverted to the open security description.

In the circumstances there is no utility in this Court

reviewing the decision that had been made. Accordingly, each

application is dismissed.	5%)
MR LOGAN: There is no application for costs by the first respondent.
MR PLUNKETT: No application by the second respondent.

9 JUDGMENT 60